Would-be “Mac cloner” Psystar has issued a statement on their website. Here it is verbatim:
Psystar has always been more a Cowboy than a Hippie. Now we’ve changed lawyers to better reflect who we are. Camara & Sibley LLP of Houston, Texas, has officially become our primary legal counsel in our ongoing litigation with Apple.
Everyone here values openness. And that’s how we’re going to fight Apple: in public. We have nothing to hide. We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself. We’re probably one of Apple’s biggest customers. Then we install these copies of OS X, along with kernel extensions that we wrote in-house, on computers that we buy and build. Then we resell the package to people like you. That’s it.
Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy. Apple can’t tell an applications developer that it can’t make a piece of Mac-compatible software. They can’t forbid Mac users from writing blogs critical of Apple. And they can’t tell us not to write kernel extensions that turn the computers we buy into Mac-compatible hardware.
A new trial date has been set for January 11, 2010, in federal court in San Francisco. As we move toward trial, we’ll be keeping you informed about the arguments, the evidence, and what’s going on in the case. And, come January, Camara & Sibley will be ready to fight for Psystar, guns blazin’. We hope to see you there!
Source: Psystar
MacDailyNews Take: What happened to the other lawyers, Psystar? Did you pay them or not? Isn’t that really why you had to find new lawyers? Just askin’, you know, in the name of “openness.”
Pound sand, Pisstar.
Cowboys No Clowns Yes,
Legal Clowns = Camara & Sibley LLP of Houston, Texas
Just Clowns = Psystar
What a Joke
Isn’t this just a grand ploy to gain more Facebook friends?
What a frakking insult to cowboys. At least cowpokes know the value of real, honest work. Pshyster is selling horse meat branded as beef.
And by the way, those “hippies” invented the software you’re basing your entire business on.
“Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy. “
I believe, Psystar, that you are NOT buying OS X. You are licensing the use of the software per the terms of agreement set by Apple. And OS X is licensed to run only on Apple produced hardware. Apple does indeed have the right to spell out the terms by which it licenses companies and individuals to use its intellectual property. If you don’t want Apple hardware, go with Linux or Windows. There are plenty of alternatives. Cowboys or not, Psystar is going down.
Even if this suit is won, Apple can always switch architectures and use ARM, after all OSX already runs on ARM hardware (iphone) and they do own P.A. Semi. Nice stuff too …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWRficient
and this is their older designs!
@Demon
What? No mention of Rodeo Clowns?
Dear Psystar, just a few questions. Was the old lawyer more of a hippie? How do cowboys respond when you clone their brand? How about when you clone their branding iron?
Is writing a blog as easy as writing kernel extension? What’s the ratio of hippies to cowboys in San Francisco? (Not including <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castro,_San_Francisco,_California”>)
Mmmm, horse meat, that’s tasty flesh! I like mine grilled to medium-rare or roasted with onions, peppers, and white potatoes.
It will be interesting to see what Psystar does when Snow Leopard is released in September.
They can’t buy the Snow Leopard UPGRADE for $29 and install it on their system. Not legally, not even by their flawed definition of what is legal.
All new Macs will come with Snow Leopard pre-installed, and an OEM Snow Leopard installation disc. Most existing Intel Macs have Leopard already, and they will use the $29 upgrade to get to Snow Leopard. I don’t think Apple is going to sell a separate “retail” package with a Snow Leopard disc.
“What? No mention of Rodeo Clowns? “
Glen Beck was one and he’s smarter than just about ALL the clowns in Washington.
Go Psystar!!!
Apple may have spent more on legal fees than Psystar has ever collected in profits. Where is the evidence that sales of Macs have been affected by Psystar? From what I have read, Apple’s sales figures don’t indicate any negative trend in sales.
Apple seems to be engaged in a vain attempt to protect their brand. Only a moron would confuse a Mac with Psystar’s products and this is not the demographic that Apple would sell products to anyhow.
We have nothing to hide.
…except, of course, the exact location of your company when you first started out. Remember how it suddenly changed a bunch of times? Where’s the openness and transparency there, eh?
Oh, and stop trying to play to the open-source crowd, Psheister. When it comes to the “kernel extensions [you] wrote in-house”, we already know your EULA is more restrictive than Apple’s – even on the code you stole from other open-source projects in the first place.
I hope Apple grinds your company into a fine powder.
“Gotta burn mah boots! They touched Yankee soil!”
Quoting Plystar: Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy.</u> Well… I’m not an attorney, but I believe Apple’s End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) certainly does. That licensing agreement requires that Apple’s intellectual property only be run on Apple’s hardware.
Unlike Microsoft, which makes crud and only sells cheap versions that are cunningly de-featured so business has to pay big $$$ to buy something that is worth a holy crap, Apple sells only <i>one version of OS X—and for one price. And that price isn’t very much; just flat cheap considering the investment they put into it. The catch? Apple asks that you not run their fine (but inexpensive) software on a cheap piece of crap they didn’t have a hand in making. If you can’t abide by that licensing term, then don’t buy OS X.
Wow, they buy HUNDREDS of licenses.
Nice sales figures, guys.
These asswipes will soon be of the ages.
ShooooWeeeeee, little doggie!!!
If Apple can’t tell people what to do with the software they buy, what’s preventing Psystar from buying one copy of OS X and installing it on every computer they sell? If Psystar is buying one copy per machine (or a family pack for 5 machines), they are honoring at least part of the EULA, and if they are honoring one part, why not the rest?
I don’t think this has anything to do with copyright. It has everything to do with the terms of a licensing agreement into which buyer and seller voluntarily enter. Psystar is shooting its own argument in the foot by honoring part of the license but not all of it.
@Greg L
Actually, Apple sells two versions of Mac OS X: Mac OS X Server and Mac OS X (i.e., client, which is what the vast majority of Apple customers use). I’m actually a little surprised that Pschyster hasn’t come out with a cheap blade on which they load Mac OS X Server by now. But then again, I don’t visit their web site, so maybe they do & I don’t know about it. AFAIC, the whole operation is an expensive challenge to Apple legal that’s going to to be vaporized come January. With their Orwellian mgmt team, I wonder if the secret backers they’re protecting with their “openness” are getting their money’s worth?
@ So What,
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
“Apple seems to be engaged in a vain attempt to protect their brand. ” That is what they are required to do by law. Troll or just lacking in brain cells???
Read roughlydrafted.com. It will either explain the facts to you or leave you confused.
Just a thought.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
en
“Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy.”
So, they can mass produce copies and sell them on eBay? They can post it on a website for free download? Or share it on a peer-to-peer network?
OK. Now, I get it. Psystar wants to follow only some of the licensing agreement – the parts that don’t harm their business.
Rootin’ tootin’ cowboys!!
I hope the gun blows up in their face. Nice to see Elmer Fudd take it in the shorts on this one. Just what we need is a roque builder willing to take short cuts on hardware.
The next thing we will have is people bitching that OSX has so many problems on their PC hardware.
“Pshyster is selling horse meat branded as beef.”
Just a day or two I was reading an old newspaper about a tavern owner who had been promising his customers a venison dinner. He was unlucky in his hunting, so he secretly bought a hindquarter of a workhorse that had to be put down due to old age. He then served horse meat as venison. The only one who knew the truth was his cousin, who had to choke down the horse meat in silence.
Cowboys? Sounds like Psystar is making a sequel to Brokeback Mountain.
Funny on the one hand they talk about openess and on the other basic accounting documents just don’t seem to exist.
MDN, keep us posted on the updates.
It’s hard to know if Apple is doing anymore than protecting against IP squatters.
It’s not stretch to imagine the boardroom banter:
Phil: “We can’t make money on a mini tower, but it’s a legitimate market sector. Let’s see where it goes.”
Legal: “We’ll put up a good fight, but give you a little room.”
I love this case because it presents the issues so clearly. The bottom line is whether an EULA can legally restrict an individual to run a legally obtained copy of software on the machine of their choice or whether the EULA will be enforced to restrict the user’s choice of hardware. There is no copyright issue (because the software in question was legally purchased and not copied) and Psystar’s drivers probably don’t infringe on OSX IP any more than the drivers in BootCamp infringe on Windows IP. By the express terms of the EULA, Apple wins. The question is whether the court (and subsequent appeals courts) would enforce the EULA. Personally, I like Psystar’s chances on this point — on its face the hardware restrictions seem contrary to public policy. But maybe Apple has some arguments that they can advance that will help their cause. Unfortunately for them, “we don’t want our software running on crap computers” won’t cut it and, indeed, will actually hurt them.
” And they can’t tell us not to write kernel extensions that turn the computers we buy into Mac-compatible hardware.”
Thats true, but they can tell you that OSX is only allowed to run on hardware THEY say, and they can also tell you , you CANNOT resell OSX or the license to use it without their permission.
If i make something and sell it, I make the terms, not you. If you screw with it go ahead, but dont expect me to support it. And if you try to tweak it, then resell it, dont think that im not going to sue your ass for illegally selling MY IP.
Morons.
@ bobsyeruncle
Apple lets you run Windows without any violation because Microsoft does not prevent you from running windows on any specific hardware.
AND Apple isnt selling systems bundled with Windows and not paying Microsoft to REsell it.
When is Texas going to secede from the US?
Then we can get rid of rootin’, tootin’ Yosemite Sam lawyers. And – whilst we’re about it – be rid of the Texas Eastern Federal District Court which is so beloved of patent trolls.
Am I missing something here?
I thought the retail version of Leopard I bought can only upgrade Tiger and cannot perform a full install of Leopard.
AFIK every Mac comes with the full version installed and the discs that ship with your Mac can restore your Mac with the full version but the retail version can’t, so what is Psystar buying?
Death Wish 2000
But we don’t have to buy the FrankenMacs, do we?
@G4Dualie
No, it’s not that way. Leopard upgrade discs contain the full OS. As so often it’s more user friendly. Think of your HD breaking and you didn’t have Time Machine and your Mac actually came with Panther. That would result in one full install and two upgrades. Quite a pain in the back.
“Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy.”
Just don’t tell that to ANY software maker trying to earn a living.
Trashing the entire principle of the EULA is not a good idea. For anyone.
Good lord, are these people ever fucking stupid.
Wow, what a great PR platform for our law firm. Let’s milk this as long as we can, because are going to get crushed… Oh, and so long as we are able to hid Dell in all of this we are golden…
What a joke, learn to read the license sillies…
@ Bobsyeruncle
First, Psystar’s “kernel extension” (their term, not mine or any other programmer I know would call it that) modifies the actions of OS X so that the OS is duped into believing it is running on Apple hardware. Modifying OS X is expressly against the SLA.
Second, ever done a clean install of Microsoft Windows? Ever have to get an authorization? What if you were to run it on a system they don’t like? Try to get an authorization to run an old version on a POWER System (there USED to be such a thing — just try to get that re-authorized NOW). I’d be shocked if you could get such an authorization from Microsoft. They get to declare OS variants dead (and have). Thus they CAN and DO restrict the use of various Windows variants.
Third, it’s not a matter of “public policy”. It is a matter of contract law. You load the software and start it up you agree to the SLA. You are then bound by the contract. Don’t agree? Don’t run it.
Fourth, even IF it were a matter of “public policy” the prevailing “public policy” is to not violate SLAs (or in the case of Microsoft, EULAs). What makes you (or Psystar) think you (or it) can claim “public policy” is to ignore SLAs?
Never met a lawyer that didn’t think his client had an unbeatable case as long as he was getting his $400 and hour.
Only someone like me, who has had his foot stepped upon by a horse more than once, could really appreciate the taste of a thick horse steak.
In the civilized world, you have to travel to Quebec or France to find a restaurant with horse on the menu. If you want to call France civilized.
@MDN:
Psystar’s lawyers didn’t “vow to fight for Psystar, guns ablazin'”, Psystar vowed that their lawyers would do that. Big difference, and (once again) a misleading headline.
Their attorney didn’t come out and make the idiotic statement, Psystar did. If you want to bitch about other journalists/columnists/analysts screwing up the facts, then get them right yourself.
More shyster lawyers trying to get their names up in lights. Give them hell Apple.
Thanks, Pystar, for helping make us Texans look stupid.
Oh, never mind.
George Walker Bush.
As the Captain of the Titanic said
“Where the f*** is all this water coming from?”
MDN.. do you have any proof that they didn’t pay their previous attorneys? or are you just throwing fire bombs on the burning building?
It’s exactly this kind of “journalism” that has caused real news to disappear from our midst.
As I always say, you shouldn’t judge the case unless you sit in the courtroom and hear all the evidence. Perhaps Psystar really does have a case, but that’s up to the judge or the jury to decide, not some internet website.
Grow up!
@ HMCIV
Didn’t want to bad mouth Rodeo Clowns as they real do have a hard job,
and for all you folks who are screaming that Apple CAN dictate what machines their software runs on, I hope, oh so REALLY hope that you’ve never given a copy of an mp3 file to a friend, because as we all know, that also would be against the “EULA” that came with the music.
And I KNOW none of you have EVER gotten a song illegally, right? And I KNOW that none of you have ever, lets say… “shared” some software that you paid for with a friend, right? Because, that too would be against the EULA.
The point is not what the EULA says, the issue before the court, is whether specific parts of the EULA are against the law.
And unless your an attorney who really knows about this stuff… you might be best to take a wait and see attitude, and leave the judging to the people who do know what they are doing.
ULA clearly states that OSX is NOT to be run on any hardware except Apple’s. It also states that it is a violation to resell or modify it without Apple’s consent or permission. Pystar legally buys OSX, Apple isn’t contesting that. Apple is contesting the fact that they resell the system that is NOT Apple hardware, and has been illegally modified by Pystar without permission from Apple. It’s clearly going to be an easy win for Apple. Especially with all the delay tactics of Pystar which hasn’t worked and I think was illegal on top of that. Claiming bankruptcy then suddenly changing there mind. Somethings clearly wrong!
So, they had lawyers, and then they were broke.
Now they have new lawyers. Where’d the money come from this time?
What? I can’t hear you? Where’s that openness now?
Cowboy Yosemite Sam, all guns blazing rides against hippie Bugs Bunny. We all know how it will end… it always end the same for poor Sam
What? No rattymouse to praise Psystar’s thief of Apple property? He/she must be having computer problems from buying junk from Psystar. Not surprised.
Switching lawyers is a delay tactic that has bought them four months. Who really is behind them? I think that whoever it is, is now running scared. They thought that they could beat Apple before now and be on easy street. Bad move on their part.
Go get them Apple.
Somebody ought to tell Psystar before they start shooting that their guns are pointed at their own head!
@Shadowself
“First, Psystar’s “kernel extension” (their term, not mine or any other programmer I know would call it that) modifies the actions of OS X so that the OS is duped into believing it is running on Apple hardware. Modifying OS X is expressly against the SLA.”
This assumes that the SLA is enforceable. The SLA says something doesn’t mean that they can make it stick. For example, if the SLA said that by breaking the shrnkwrap and installing the software I agree to give Steve Jobs my liver if he wants it, there is no way that Steve could get me to give up my liver if didn’t want to.
“Third, it’s not a matter of “public policy”. It is a matter of contract law. You load the software and start it up you agree to the SLA. You are then bound by the contract. Don’t agree? Don’t run it.”
No, public policy is implicit in the enforcement of any contract. For example, again, if I sign a contract with Steve Jobs in which I agree to give him my liver, there is no court in the world that would enforce that contract because taking a living person’s liver is murder and because even if I were dead, our society does not permit the sale of organs and any such contract of sale is unenforceable.
“Fourth, even IF it were a matter of “public policy” the prevailing “publilc policy” is to not violate SLAs (or in the case of Microsoft, EULAs). What makes you (or Psystar) think you (or it) can claim “public policy” is to ignore SLAs?”
Because as a general matter, if you purchase a product you are entitled to do whatever you want with it within the limits of the law. Thus if I buy a MacBook and I want to smash it with a sledgehammer, no SLA would stop me from having the right to do that. If I want to sell my MacBook to someone else, no SLA could stop me from doing that, because under the constitution property is freely transferable. So if the SLA imposes restrictions that are legally improper, no court would enforce it. Now what might the SLA say that could be unenforceable? Well, it basically says if you want to use this software, you have to buy a Mac. Now if you bought a set of dishes and they came with a shrinkwrap license that said that you may only put food purchased at Safeway on those dishes, the unenforceability of that agreement would be immediately obvious. IBM got hammered for this 25 years ago when they engineered their mainframe operating system so that it wouldn’t recognize hard drives that weren’t made by IBM. This is called tying: forcing you to buy something you don’t want in order to use the thing that you do want.
But again, that’s why I love this case. Contrary to what others say here, this case is not a slam dunk for Apple. To the contrary, all things being equal, I think that Psystar has a better than even shot. But all things are not equal because Apple can so outspend Psystar that the issues may not get fully litigated.
Texas? Isn’t Micheal Dell from Texas?
Didn’t Micheal Dell offer to make & sell Macs once they switched to Intel processors & Mac OSX was written for Intel chips & PowerPC chips.
Is this all a “pi***ng contest between Micheal & Steve Jobs?
Apple’s jack booted brown shirt lawyers will crush Pystar’s lawyers
chew them up & drop them like hot bull pies!
To all the people defending Psystar. Sorry, but Psystar is just a company taking Apple’s work, repackaging it and trying to make a fast buck. Why are you defending such a shitty outfit? Go ahead, buy a Psystar. You get what you deserve. It sounds like you want to play in the Apple amusement park, but don’t want to pay the price of admission.
@bobsyeruncle
Your position is moronic. Pystar reselling Max OS X on non-Apple hardware is not life threatening. Except to the life of the Pystar company, which is not a real person. It IS however, illegal according to the SLA, and Apple is well within its rights to sue Pystar in order to enforce the SLA.
According to the “logic” you’re using, you could contort any contractual issue into a “liver” issue and make contract law of any sort unenforceable. I can see it now: “So what if I signed a contract agreeing to pay $26,000 plus interest over 60 months for this car on your lot? What if I’d signed a contract agreeing to give you my liver? You couldn’t enforce it. Therefore, I don’t owe you any money.”
That is so complete bullshit, and NO judge in this country would buy into it.
You can’t contract for things that are illegal – well, you can, but such contracts are unenforceable under the law – or, at least, those provisions that are illegal are unenforceable, assuming there is a separability clause in the contract. So, as Mr. Weise says above, the bobsyeruncle argument doesn’t fly.
Apple licenses their OS contingent on a number of conditions laid out in their SLA. Among those are: you can’t resell, you agree to run on Apple hardware. When a for-profit corporation decides to buy copies of that OS and resell them at a profit without any of Apple’s contingent conditions, what they’ve effectively done is to take a product that they’ve bought at an artificially low subsidized price because it came with a set of significant restrictions, then remove all the restrictions from the product and sell it for more money, in spite of the agreement they made that with the original vendor. It’s so totally bogus that Psystar’s only hope, I expect, will be in jury demographics. I just can’t figure out what demographic they’re hoping to select….
@Contract Law 101
“You can’t contract for things that are illegal – well, you can, but such contracts are unenforceable under the law – or, at least, those provisions that are illegal are unenforceable, assuming there is a separability clause in the contract. So, as Mr. Weise says above, the bobsyeruncle argument doesn’t fly.”
Actually, you’ve merely restated my point. If a court finds that the enforcement of the provisions of Apple’s SLA to be contrary to public policy, they will refuse to enforce them. Illegality is merely one public policy ground on which a court will refuse to enforce a contract, but hardly the only one.
Your second paragraph neatly and cogently lays out the arguments that Apple will make, and if in a trial all they needed to do was lay out their arguments, then it would be all over for Psystar. Unfortunately for Apple, trials don’t work that way and here in the US both sides get to present their arguments, and Psystar has some pretty good ones. For example, in the US, goods are generally freely alienable. That means that if you buy something, you have the right to resell it. As a general matter, contracts that prohibit resale of goods (particularly contracts of adhesion like SLAs) are NOT enforceable unless there is a good reason for that. So unless Apple can advance a good reason why the court should take the unusual step of enforcing the no-reselling clause, Psystar wins this public policy argument, IMO. The restriction to Apple hardware one is harder because on its face the restriction seems reasonable. But Psystar could argue that that Apple is somehow trying to use their control over OSX to prohibit the public from purchasing otherwise compatible hardware from other manufacturers. That argument could fly, but it is basically an anti-trust argument, and Apple has already shown that at least as far as the Mac is concerned (because its market share is so small), it is immune from anti-trust scrutiny (this may not apply to the iPod and possibly not to the iPhone).
bobsyeruncle and Contract Law 101
Please …
Don’t confuse the issue with things like Facts, Lawyers, and Courts
After we head ’em off at the pass, round ’em up, and smoke ’em out
We want “guns blazin”
Yaw Hee
BC
“In comes the cavalry”
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
These dopes are so F*CKED.
I’m grabbing stuff off their website for something to laugh at next year. For folks who still think Psystar have an iota of a chance, go take an Introduction To Law class before you speak. because you’re wrong.
One acknowledges that today’s life seems to be not very cheap, however different people need money for various stuff and not every man gets enough money. Thence to get good mortgage loans and term loan will be a proper solution.